About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14
of defense, we talk about the post office and prepayments being made. there is one truism on both, o s the taxpayer is ultimately on the hook. yes. so it is not an issue is this just a quasi-government organization, both dod and you need prepayments. we're ultimately on the hook the taxpayer is. what concerns me in a time, admitted, mr. chairman your low liquidity. you're not really sure you can get down as low as two days later this year, at a time in which the discussions have been made and i have read about the board of governors and your role. you do believe you have a fiduciary duty in your role to the postal service and in your role, correct? >> mr. chairman, representative, yes. >> that means there's a trust. there's a trust with you and the board of governors not just strictly you but i believe with the postmaster general and others in this situation. what i keep hearing is, well we thought of and we're looking at that. we have a five-year plan that was many years ago. we have discussions that we want to do. we're exploring ideas. these are direct quotes from today, exploring h
of defense is currently spending $10 billion more conducting the war effort in afghanistan this year than was estimated would be necessary. from what we understand, in order to make up for this estimation the department of defense will have to pull from other funds from its base budget, which is difficult because of sequestration and the other long-term spending limits imposed by the budget control act of 2011. the problems with trying to budget and plan for a war a year in advance and how unforeseen costs can arise. at the same time a $10 billion is copulation is a little alarming. -- miss calculation is a little bit alarming. general, can you explain to us how that underestimation occurred? that we insidere u.s. forces in afghanistan under estimated $10 billion for our requirements for this year. i can assure you we have gone back and look at every dollar we have spent to make sure we have spent to good effect. we have significantly reduced the money we are spending in afghanistan. i will go back and take a look at where the projection came from and why we are in the position we are in
array to include a sophisticated air defense capability, depending who is operating in. a no-fly zone would not be without cost. >> even though the best testified he could with cruise missiles and within the patriot missiles in the right place is that we could establish a no-fly zone. >> patriot missiles i'm getting out of my league. that is essentially a point weapon. the theory is you could position patriot missiles outside of syria and somehow provide security outside the zone, given the nature of the pastry about then, which is not an area of a project or would be tough. >> and what's fascinating is now you are saying instead of the joint chiefs of staff that it has deteriorated so much that you now have questions whether we should supply weapto rebels are not, which the argues we shod have supplied them back ommended coing to published reports well heta o state, as well as the chairman of the joint chiefs f staff. it's remarkable. see you in the administration figure and say we don't know where the weapons are going. maybe if we help the people of writing from the beginning befor
't allow. and i'm not blaming the lawyer. my goodness, if i were his defense lawyer, you wouldn't ask him one thing without my permission and you would have to give a lot to get an answer to anything. all i'm suggesting is that we're at war, these two people fit the profile of folks who are trying to kill us, they're tied to overseas organizations potentially. why in the world can't our country have some time with this person in the national security legal system to find out about what he knows and how they planned this attack to make the rest of us safer? i believe in due process. and he in that system can go to a judge and say, i'm not an enemy combat expent the government would have to -- combatant and the government would have to prove you are. so he has due process there. but here's what i believe deeply, and then i'll turn it over to senator eye i can't telw hampshire. i believe the closer to get to your homeland, the more rights we have as a people to defend ourselves. i don't want a police state. i don't want to live in ath a country where you can't express who you are and what yo
of defense. we built a strengthened homeland security enterprise and a more secure america, better to face the challenges we face. the president'sle budget allows us to build on the progress by preserving core front line operations priorities. at the same time, given the current fiscal environment, this is the third straight year that our budget requests reflects a deduction from the previous year. our request is $800 million below the f.y. 2013 enacted budget. our mission has nod changed and we continue to face evolving threats. we've become more strategic how we use these resources. this is coupled with a unprecedented with a fiscal discipline that has led to $4 billion in cost reductions over the past four years in a process we call efficiency review. before i get to the nuts and bolts of the budget i want to talk about sequestration. >> excuse me. can i ask you to pause a little bit longer. if you could pause for a moment dub. we want to get this quarum ieve we have a .nd if i can find -- here we go i would like to take this opportunity to conduct a brief business meeting -- to consi
defense authorize act of 2012 which specifically bars trying american citizens in military tribunals. >> now, pete, there is -- there is some doubt that we will have the charges made officially released today. why? >> i don't know the exact why. we'll know here a little while. we expected them saturday. we expected them sunday. we'll see whether we get them today. there's still some issues they're trying to resolve here. and i just don't know specifically what they are. at first i thought it was merely a drafting issue. but i think it's clearly beyond that. i don't know if it's a legal question. i don't know if it's an evidentiary issue of what they're trying to put into the complaint. we'll just have to wait and see. >> and one more piece of information that's been floating around. his mother has claimed the fbi made contact with one or both of the tsarnaev brothers before thursday night. any truth to this? >> everybody i've talked to, including the fbi, says none whatsoever. >> so these are just his mother making claims that -- unsubstantiated at best? >> it's certainly -- it's sim
. it's an affirmative defense on an evidentiary point. >> so your point is, just so i can clarify, your point is, we can still very likely put this guy in jail, or get the death penalty, whatever we decide. we may not need any of these statements against him in court. why not interrogate him for public safety reasons longs as long as we want? >> jay is right. the guy confessed in the carjacking. the terror suspect confessed to being the boston bomber. tim think mcveigh was mirandized. there isn't a problem here, which is why i'm surprised that senator graham, senator mccain and others would be looking to create a political issue in a way that looks to be, maybe they may not be intending this, looks to be grandstanding. >> what they say, julian, i heard senator graham earlier, they said the public safety issue is limited in time. maybe you only have 48 hours after he -- he said they need 30 days. they need a long time to come up with their questioning. clearly we have more to discuss. that's important. we'll hold you over and pick it up on the other side. >> all right. [ female announcer
effectiveness rate went up from 68% to 82%. if you conclude the defense money that senator rubio put in the bill, that is $4.5 billion. most experts think you will get a higher effective rate. we are not just giving new responsibilities. we are giving them new personnel, new equipment, things like that. with that, i want to thank my colleagues for staying. i think my witnesses. it has been a long day. i want to thank the chairman. this is been a aero, extensive hearing. all different points of view have been spoken about. secretary napolitano will be here. onepanelists will have week to answer your questions in writing, long before we go to mark up in early may. with that, the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the committee has announced another hearing on an immigration bill tomorrow. we will have better life for you in the morning starting at 9:30 eastern on c-span. we have lots more on the subject www.c-e for you at span.org. david leopold. he admits he has not read the entire immigration b
. for the left, the defensive crouch at least makes sense. liberalism's main purpose is to defend its past gains from conservative reform. negativity on the right to my mind makes no sense at all. the left has created this false narrative. liberals are for things and conservatives are against things. when we concede this narrative, we concede the debate before the debate begins. yet too many of us do it anyway. we take the bait. a liberal proposes an idea, we explain why it will not work, and we think we have won the debate at that moment. even if we do, we reinforce that false narrative that i am talking about, winning battles while losing the war. this must be frustrating to the scholars at the heritage foundation who work every day producing new ideas, ideas about what conservatives can be for. moret should be frustrating to the conservatives around the country that we as elected conservatives were elected to serve. after all they know what they are for, so why don't we? perhaps it is because it is so easy in washington to forget. in washington we debate public policy so persistently that we
the border, that is the last line of defense, keeping the threat out of this country. proponent of big border security for a long time. to unveilting ready technology. i was disappointed to see that your budget decreases funding for border technology. question, ir that will ask an additional one. >> it is the force multiplier. track to implement our technology procurement. as you know, what i did last year was stop the investment in having one integrated power plant across the entire border because it was expensive and was not working. more off-the- shelf technology that fits a particular terrain. if we are going to talk about comprehensive immigration reform, we not be able to that. the increase of the budget on i went to afghanistan and we talked about the technologies we much in agreement. excess surplus, they're willing to share with their department. >> the budget includes $43 million which is some dod. some of those air stats are not in the best shape. not a perfect solution, but the point is an important one. to the extent we have already invested in r&d, we can transfer over the bord
is for the purpose of providing national defense and interstate commerce, but since the state have shuffled off welfare and education and everything else to the federal government, neither one of the governments are doing the job properly. another thing is i am a 21-year veteran. i think we should get out of afghanistan or any other place that we're in now that we're not going to go over there and beat the hell out of them and come on home. i think veterans a lot of times are complaining -- there are cases where they are being mistreated, but there are veterans who are complaining that are probably getting too much help as it is. i think you very much. -- thank you very much. guest: i want to thank you for your service to this country. the role of the better government, i have to agree first and foremost is a national defense. homeland security plays a key role in that. the clear role is to keep people safe and do what we can. i certainly understand the concern about making sure we do what we do it as efficiently and effectively as possible. i do see a public role with regard to the things tha
of police officers did, rushing in to set up a line of defense around it while they rushed people away. then, wolf, they brought in the technology. going to demonstrate what we are talking about with this small model. they brought in a thermal imaging helicopter. it can look to the ground and measure anything that's hot down there and see anything giving off any heat, including a human being in a boat in a backyard like that one there. this is what they saw. they had an image of someone in the back of that boat, just as the witness had suspected, and the person was moving around. while all we have are still images, they had real time video that told them when someone was moving in the back of that boat. a gun fight ensued. there were injuries to him, i believe he was hit two more times, threw flash bang grenades there and everything got quiet as negotiators tried to talk to him. what happened next? they brought in more technology, had a robotic arm so they could reach out to him. two hours, then they brought in thermal imaging one more time. this is what they saw in the final image. they wer
in the national defense system and preventing further tragedies perpetrated on the american public is that we do things properly and we get to truth and justice. sometimes that takes a long time. in the atlanta bombing, which was a very serious event regarding the olympics, it took a long time and frankly when we finally apprehended the individual, there was a lot of fatigue in the system. i think the system outlasted the perpetrator in that situation and we got to a place of justice. >> all right. former attorney general john ashcroft, thank you very much for your insight this morning. >> delight to be with you. thank you very much. keep up the good work. >> thank you. up next, today's business headlines with cnbc's brian shactman. keep it here on "morning joe." i'm with clemmie, who is looking to save to help make ends meet. what if you could save over $500 bucks a year by changing one small thing? yeah, let's do it! let's do it. the average fast food breakfast can run you over $4 a meal per person. i know. walmart has a ton of breakfast options. a meal like this costs about $1.64 per serving.
't help but question whether spending millions more in defense from united states to mexico is really the best use of dollars, but i do know that each one of us can write what we want, and each one of us may have a different bill. you have a bill that's a product of compromise, very difficult concessions by all involvedand i mentioned senator schumer and senator schumer, durbin, graham, and plate, but also, senator feinstein and senator senator menendez, senator rubio, senator bennett, all worked on this. so now we're bringing to the public this immigration hearing. it's the fourth we've had this year. we will hold hearings on monday. we will find time for secretary napolitano to come before the committee and discuss that with senator grassley. and so i hope these will give the public an opportunity to learn about it. certainly, every one of us loves to want to say we -- every one of us will have plenty of time to analyze this bill before we actually start marking it up in may. but just remember, immigration is an ongoing source of renewal of our spirit, our creativity, and also, our
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)